Net66 Web Design Ltd website claim downgrade.

It is interesting to see that up until recently Net66 claimed (on its website, Nov ’12 to mid Feb ‘13)”
QUOTE: “…One of our Founding Director’s Tom McVey has been responsible for raising Millions of Pounds for charitable organisations such as RSPCA, British Red Cross and The Dogs Trust.”
- Now the website claim reads:
QUOTE “One of our founding directors, Tom McVey, has played a part in raising millions of pounds for charitable organisations such as the RSPCA, The British Red Cross and The Dogs Trust.”

A small change in the wording, but a dramatic change of meaning. The claim that Director McVey raised £millions has been discarded, and NOW the claim just means that he played a part in raising money – which of course is also true of everyone who’s put a £1 in a collection tin.
The term ‘Net66 complaints’ usually means complaints ABOUT Net66, but on this occasion Net66 complained to me for expressing doubt about its website claim.
After I posted a piece saying that because of Net66’s long record of false claims some people found the recent claim hard to believe, both Directors at Net66 contacted me, partially to discuss this subject - or more accurately to berate me for criticising the company.
Slightly off-the-point, one Director emailed me and attempted to fudge the issue by saying Net66 had raised money for various different charities to those listed on the website, and would continue to do so. If it’s true who could argue that it is a desirable thing?
However, the website claim was very specific, stating £millions raised by Tom McVey; but the Net66 comment to me was very general – ‘(some) money raised’ by Net66. That important downgrade is now reflected on the website.

More promising was when the other Director, the man himself, Tom McVey, phoned me. Amongst various topics discussed he said he has documentary proof from the charities concerned that he had raised the £millions. - AND he said he could show me the proof.
Regrettably, when I said, “O.K, show me.” – Mr McVey declined. But if Director McVey has his proof of raising the £millions why downgrade the website claim?
Perhaps Net66 realised they’d been caught with their trousers down, or perhaps the ASA has once again ‘had a word in their ear’ and they’ve caved in because the ‘proof’ is insufficient to support the claim? Or perhaps there’s another explanation?

Net66 has appeared under several guises, but the amount of bad press it has attracted spans them all. The same 2 directors say they've cleaned up their act, but still repeat things they've been caught out with before.

Buyer Beware!